4 Answers

"Ms. Keeton is studying to become a school counselor, which falls under the auspices and guidelines of the American Counseling Association. The ACA has its own Code of Ethics to which all counselors must adhere, which includes prohibiting counselors from discriminating against anyone in a professional setting based on factors such as gender identity and sexual orientation, among others."

My question is, does she have an ulterior motive for choosing a field where she would have access to young people. Is it her hope that she can get to them and force her beliefs on them to somehow get them to change? What good would she be as a counselor to a gay person (teen or young adult)? They wouldn't be looking for help with their sexuality. They would see her to help get their courses set up. I don't think she could do her job and not address their sexuality with her close minded views of it. She's already quite vocal about her views within her own school, she'd never be able to keep her mouth shut in a job environment.

She needs to pick a different career path before she goes out and damages youth by preaching that they are bad for choosing that "lifestyle". Kids kill themselves because of bigots like her.

I would guess that the don't ask don't tell rule is still in existence.

As the article stated, her beliefs are protected by the Constitution. The school should lose this case because they have already judged her by presuming she would "tell homo's they are bad", as someone here has stated. Colleges were created to exchange ideas and build upon them, not by throwing people out because of religious beliefs, which again the Constitution protects.

No where does the article state that the student would push her beliefs upon those she would counsel, and to presume otherwise is just Religious bashing.

Great answers! Thanks guys!